AUSTRALIAN MEDIA NOT HELPING (Including you Scarfman).

[Scorz]

And the McCaw warning, for all your attention to detail you missed that McCaw himself was penalised and warned personally. In the next incident it wasn't McCaw who was penalised. Rolland puts the whole team on a warning.

You missed where he warned them too. He specifically mentions the difference, no surprises Smithy is so pissfaced he misses the distinction. Good reffing, he stuck to his guns there.

 

[Scorz]

Scorz - all I can say is that the reponse you've quouted seems to me to be quite deranged. Only a mad All Black fan could attempt those defences with a straight face.

Barbarian, I have my straight face on.

 

[Scarfman]

1. Cheers baabaa. That list of excuses was too lame to be bothered with.

2. I never said there was a conspiracy. The ABs are systematically getting away with a few things and PO'B is the only person who can draw attention to this. I think PO'B is grossly incompetent, no matter what his nationality. However, Stugate will not EVER be forgotten or forgiven by me, and it points to bias. You KNOW it does. No conspiracy, just an incompetent head of refs who might possibly also be biased. Just ask Bob.

 

[Matto]

You can't be "offside at a ruck" if it doesn't exist as defined by one or more players from each side on their feet in contact over the ball.

Wrong. Very wrong indeed. You can still be offside even if a ruck doesn't exist. For a start, the claim that you can't be offside in general play is wrong. From the definition in Law 11, you're offside if you're ahead of the ball or the last team-mate who played the ball.

Thomond78, please read the quote again. We all know that a player can be offside in general play. At no time did I say otherwise. ("No ruck = general play - not offside" meant it was general play and not offside in this instance)
Please lets not get into a debate over sytax.

I will conceed that the ref could have pinged players for not coming from their own goal-line side at the tackle, but general play is another matter. The offside rules are different for a ruck, a tackle, and general play.

Look guys, we're not all going to agree all of the time, so we could go on forever, and in my case I can tell you, that isn't going to happen.
To those of you who are confused about the refs rulings regarding the ruck, don't believe everything you hear on the commentary or in the media. Much of it is biased or uninformed. The ref's actually get it right most of the time.
I'm not sure if most readers out there even care about these rule distinctions (ruck, maul, tackle, general play). I, for one, do. It's more enjoyable to me if I can understand the game. Others may just want to see their team win at all cost, and then enjoy a winge when they don't. Whatever floats your boat.
Thanks for your replies.

 

[Scorz]

If the list of "excuses" is too lame to be bothered defending Scarfie, maybe you should just admit your interpretations are up the crazy tree and be prepared to learn. Or does it only work one way? There is a rulebook for the Blacks, and one for everyone else, or there is nothing? Come on mate.

 

[Scarfman]

Fucksake Scorz, read barbarian's post. Each and every instance I highlighted in the video was illegal. The only sane defence is something like: "You only looked at one side, the Boks were just as bad." If that's your opinion, fine. But if your opinion is - like Matto's - that these are not illegal acts, then my opinion is that you are incapable of reconciling your support for the All Blacks with the laws of rugby.

Scarf out.

 

[Scorz]

Fucksake Scorz, read barbarian's post. Each and every instance I highlighted in the video was illegal. The only sane defence is something like: "You only looked at one side, the Boks were just as bad." If that's your opinion, fine. But if your opinion is - like Matto's - that these are not illegal acts, then my opinion is that you are incapable of reconciling your support for the All Blacks with the laws of rugby.

Scarf out.

My opinion is that you have demonstrated a misunderstanding of some of the rules, and a resistance to being told so.

Shake hands, drink beer.

 

[Gnostic]

Just like on threads around the world a few Kiwi posters are getting mighty upset that somebody has had the temerity to question the ABs methods at the ruck.

I said the same thing about the Crusaders tactics.

all the arguments mounted to defend the tactics appear to revolve around the assertion that there is no ruck formed. If that is the case every All Black player arriving at that shall we call it "phase" should be penalised as they tackle a player without the ball. They even bind together and drive past a tackled player and tackle opposition players anywhere in the vicinity of the ball, but they do not have the ball so they must be penalised. The only way this would be legal is if they were contesting possession at a ruck.

But to contest possession at a ruck it must be formed over the ball and the players must enter behind the hindmost foot (gate).

That is the basis for my argument against the tactics in use by the ABs.
1) Arriving players drive past the ball and then loiter holding opposition players away from the ruck sometimes over 3 metres away from the ruck.
2) Offensive pillars flop around the side of the ruck to slow the ball and restrict half back options
3) Players enter from the side

The Link I posted on Page one of this thread is a no brainer. There is a clear ruck formed and Conrad Smith come in from the side and tackles a player not bound but moving toward the ruck ON THE OPPOSITION SIDE. That is a clear penalty. The Hurricanes win the ruck and score off that phase. This is the type of play that the ABs are getting away with.

Look at Mcaw's try last week, Smith again makes the tackle, does not release the tackled player and the ball miraculously gets ejected at speed on the AB side and Mcaw scores.

When these arguments have been posted on other sites they have been met with squeals of derision that the Wallaby fans are poor losers, conveniently ignoring that fact that the vast majority of Wallaby fans were scathing of the team's performance and freely admitted that they were never in the game and did nothing deserving the win.

The counter analysis posted was a well thought out denial of the facts but fails on every point.

 

[Gnostic]

Hey Scarfie, did you notice that the ABs tried driving past the ruck twice in the game, once the Wallabies smashed back into them and the second time they were penalised (Jane) for coming in from the side. Totally absent were the players lying around at the back of the ruck and the offensive pillars.

Think Kraplan (was I think was average for both sides) spoke to Mcaw/Henry before the match and said "I watched scarfie's video and you know something you are a bunch of cheating &&^^%$# so don't try that shit tonight".

 

[RugbyReg]

What I noticed is that the Wallabies did it for the first 5 minutes, very clearly. Then stopped.

 

[Ruggo]

Holy shit, Rule # 9 has copped a pounding in this thread.

 

[Scarfman]

A timely reminder, Ruggo.

Now can you just get these Kiwis to shut up?

 

[Scotty]

Wow. You have a whole new game to talk about ABs getting away with it now. That first half in particular. The breakdown policing was non-existent from Kaplan, with the Abs allowed to slow the Wallaby ball at all times. Even then at one stage the penalty count must have been 6-1 against the Blacks. and Kaplan's warning came to nothing.

I recall a time (around 17mins) where McCaw was on the wrong side of the ruck, one hand on the ground and the other hand trying to grab the ball. Kaplan warned him, but McCaw kept going at it. Kaplan didn't penalise. I hate refs that warn and don't penalise when a player keeps going.

 

[Blue]

Scarf, quality but I don't think it's fair to call John Smit a whinger. Quite the opposite. He normally smoothes things over after PdV goes ape.

 

[Blue]

A lot of people seem to be winging about the rules/sanctions etc. and I reckon the Media in this country is mostly to blame. For example, the Fox sports commentary team are simply one-eyed and don't know the rules of the game. I would love to see Fox hire Gordon Bray for his unbiased & accurate calls over the last couple of decades.
Scarfman's video analysis of the AB's at the breakdown was based on the misunderstanding of what constitutes the difference between a ruck and a tackle. That lack of understanding flows through to the readers, causing more general confusion.
So, Scarfman, you're not helping!

I watched the video, then read this post, then watched it again.

I count 2 situations where Scarf could be wrong.

Other than that the post includes a good bit of one-eye delusional babble. Nice start to your career here son.

I fast forwarded the first half of tonight's CC game from ruck to ruck and quickly found three rucks where Franks was doing the same.

Coincidence? Absolutely not. Tactics? Yes. And if they get away with it? Fair play to them.

 

[TheRiddler]

Scarfie, I'd be more upset with Kearnsie calling you a Jarpie during last nights broadcast. Must be the gay accent thing.

 

[Thomond78]

1. Cheers baabaa. That list of excuses was too lame to be bothered with.

2. I never said there was a conspiracy. The ABs are systematically getting away with a few things and PO'B is the only person who can draw attention to this. I think PO'B is grossly incompetent, no matter what his nationality. However, Stugate will not EVER be forgotten or forgiven by me, and it points to bias. You KNOW it does. No conspiracy, just an incompetent head of refs who might possibly also be biased. Just ask Bob.

It might be time here to mention the test used at law, objective and subjective bias.

Subjective is where the guy actually is biased. I don't think PO'B is. Incompetent, yes, unable to restrain himself from crashing in where calm and staying out of it would serve him better, yes, but I don't think he's subjectively biased.

Objective is where a reasonable observer would have a reasonable apprehension of bias in the case, looking at the circumstances. And unfortunately, PO'B's conduct is getting close to this - he isn't but people might think he is. The real problem isn't him, it's that others, under him, sub-consciously trim their sails to their perception based on this, while angling for the top slot.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, or a massive plot. Human nature, ambition and general stupidity will do it just dandy. We've all seen it in the workplace, and know how it happens, with absolute honest from all concerned, all the time.

 

[Hawko]

It might be time here to mention the test used at law, objective and subjective bias.

Subjective is where the guy actually is biased. I don't think PO'B is. Incompetent, yes, unable to restrain himself from crashing in where calm and staying out of it would serve him better, yes, but I don't think he's subjectively biased.

Objective is where a reasonable observer would have a reasonable apprehension of bias in the case, looking at the circumstances. And unfortunately, PO'B's conduct is getting close to this - he isn't but people might think he is. The real problem isn't him, it's that others, under him, sub-consciously trim their sails to their perception based on this, while angling for the top slot.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, or a massive plot. Human nature, ambition and general stupidity will do it just dandy. We've all seen it in the workplace, and know how it happens, with absolute honest from all concerned, all the time.

This is a very fine post.

Everyone who has worked in the upper levels of an organisation knows that the top manager sets the tone for those below him. Those who don't toe the line are slowly weeded out by the system or remain blind-sided and are regarded as dangerous mavericks. That's what made O'Brien's public support of the All Blacks and criticism of Dickenson so wrong. It set the tone and warned all referees to toe the line or receive the same treatment. That it was his own nation's team leads to the appearance of bias.

Once there is an appearance of bias other nations will think that New Zealand is being treated differently to everyone else. Until O'Brien (hopefully in confidence and not publicly) makes a clear instruction that all teams are to be treated equally and this action flows through to the actions of those officiating the appearance of bias remains.

Given the appearance of bias, the actions of the referees are being seen as being pro-NZ. The mess that has been the refereeing inconsistency in this trinations (worst IMO in the first two tests) only adds to that when NZ appears to have been the major beneficiary. Now Woodcock has escaped a card and citing the appearance of bias has been compounded.

O'Brien IMO was just about the best ref I ever saw but his record as manager is very poor. This is why you don't always make your best salesman the next sales manager.

 

[Ruggo]

If it is not bias, It is incompetence.

 

[Gnostic]

Scarfie gets a mention (in general) as a Rugby "Expert" by Spiro.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...urageous-is-not-a-victory-20100809-11u2d.html

What shits me about Spiro and Growsen and virtually every other hack is they want to look at everything in isolation.

Nobody who understands the Laws of the game can dispute the issues posted in Scarfy's vid. There have been many many more examples posted around the world before and since.

Too many posters and journo then go off on a tangent and start saying that this is an excuse for the Wallabies not winning? Where was that ever mentioned. The Wallabies wouldn't have won any of their games IMO if they played against 13 men with a full compliment.

The Scarfy Vid highlighted a few points some people had been trying to make unsuccessfully for a long time. It should not detract from analysis which many have also posted on the lack of depth, support runners, counter ruck, playing injured players, lack of bench use etc etc etc which all add up to a woefully under performing Oz team.

Only when all the issues that internally effect this Wallabies team are addressed will they be more than a one game a year side and victories will come consistantly.

I would still like to see the issues raised by Scarfman addressed as they really shit me. Seeing a team get away with clearly coached professional fouls detracts from enoyment of the game.